Signed-off-by: Naveen Saini <naveen.kumar.saini@...>
---
conf/layer.conf | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/conf/layer.conf b/conf/layer.conf
index f7cd15d..cb0064f 100644
--- a/conf/layer.conf
+++ b/conf/layer.conf
@@ -14,3 +14,5 @@ BBFILE_PRIORITY_zephyr = "6"
LAYERVERSION_zephyr = "1"

LAYERDEPENDS_zephyr = "core"
+
+LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_zephyr = "warrior zeus"
--
2.17.1

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 09:28:03AM +0000, Mike Looijmans wrote:

One solution I can think of is to put the header into it's own
recipe/repository and then refer to it like any other library would. Refer to
that recipe from the module (or kernel) recipe that needs it. This way you
have your header in a single maintainable location and dependencies properly
taken care of.

If that's not something you could live with, share your recipes, since vague
problem descriptions will only get you vague solutions...

This is the problem I see with multiple BSPs. In the end for every one of them
the best solution is to fork linux-libc-headers.

Adding custom recipes to export headers for every BSP kernel is not scaling so well.

Sharing the BSPs and hacks around them would be nice but they are not public sadly :(

Cheers,

-Mikko

On 02-12-19 10:19, Mikko.Rapeli@... wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 09:13:47AM +0000, Mike Looijmans wrote:

On 01-12-19 22:57, Peter Bergin via Lists.Yoctoproject.Org wrote:

Hi,

I'm currently working in a project using Yocto 2.6 (thud) release. It has
default kernel v4.18 and also linux-libc-headers from kernel v4.18. In my
project we will use kernel v4.1. I would like advice how to handle the
linux-libc-headers package for my project, should I use the v4.18 headers or
should I use the v4.1 header files which matches the running kernel?

From https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/headers_install.html:
"Kernel headers are backwards compatible, but not forwards compatible. This
means that a program built against a C library using older kernel headers
should run on a newer kernel (although it may not have access to new
features), but a program built against newer kernel headers may not work on an
older kernel."

With the information from the quote above I would directly use v4.1 headers as
my linux-libc-headers. But then reading the information in the file
meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers.inc makes me think
another round. It states:

"
# You're probably looking here thinking you need to create some new copy
# of linux-libc-headers since you have your own custom kernel. To put
# this simply, you DO NOT.
...
# There can also be a case where your kernel extremely old and you want
# an older libc ABI for that old kernel. The headers installed by this
# recipe should still be a standard mainline kernel, not your own custom
# one.
"

The first part states that I should not change linux-libc-headers. But when I
read the last part I'm not sure about the interpretation and it could be for
my case. Just a matter of definition if v4.1 is extremely old compared to v4.18.

Then another thing comes in to the equation; the LIBC ABI. When I look into
the configuration of the glibc package it uses the configure switch
"--enable-kernel=3.2" which means it shall be compatible with all kernel newer
than v3.2. Then probably glibc is fine if it is compiled with v4.18 and run on
v4.1?

If building all applications against v4.18 headers but run on v4.1 kernel. I
have a feeling that there potentially can be problems here.

Please help me with some information about this and share your opinions? Are
there any risks at all to use v4.1 as linux-libc-headers in my Yocto build?
The only drawback I see is that it will be a new configuration not well tested
by the community. Are there other risks or drawbacks using your own version of
linux-libc-headers?

It is not broken, so please don't fix it.

OpenPLi has been using kernels way older than 4.1 with the kernel-headers
generated by OE/yocto and did not experience any problems with that. There's
about 50+ machines in there that have pre-built binary drivers that only work
with a particular kernel config and hence the old stuff.

There are some corner-cases with exotic kernels and exotic exports and exotic
boot executables that use the kernel compiler, but I doubt that you're in there...

If you have a kernel that exports something that's not in the regular headers,
it's way better to solve that using a syscall than trying to poke in low level
libc stuff.

So again, if you don't experience problems, please don't try to fix it...

How to find a Linux kernel uapi header file with custom ioctl() etc definitions which
are missing form the default linux-libc-headers?

Other recipes and SDK builds need these.

Copying the needed header files into the recipes who needs them is not ok.

One solution I can think of is to put the header into it's own
recipe/repository and then refer to it like any other library would. Refer to
that recipe from the module (or kernel) recipe that needs it. This way you
have your header in a single maintainable location and dependencies properly
taken care of.

If that's not something you could live with, share your recipes, since vague
problem descriptions will only get you vague solutions...

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 09:13:47AM +0000, Mike Looijmans wrote:

On 01-12-19 22:57, Peter Bergin via Lists.Yoctoproject.Org wrote:

Hi,

I'm currently working in a project using Yocto 2.6 (thud) release. It has
default kernel v4.18 and also linux-libc-headers from kernel v4.18. In my
project we will use kernel v4.1. I would like advice how to handle the
linux-libc-headers package for my project, should I use the v4.18 headers or
should I use the v4.1 header files which matches the running kernel?

From https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/headers_install.html:
"Kernel headers are backwards compatible, but not forwards compatible. This
means that a program built against a C library using older kernel headers
should run on a newer kernel (although it may not have access to new
features), but a program built against newer kernel headers may not work on an
older kernel."

With the information from the quote above I would directly use v4.1 headers as
my linux-libc-headers. But then reading the information in the file
meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers.inc makes me think
another round. It states:

"
# You're probably looking here thinking you need to create some new copy
# of linux-libc-headers since you have your own custom kernel. To put
# this simply, you DO NOT.
...
# There can also be a case where your kernel extremely old and you want
# an older libc ABI for that old kernel. The headers installed by this
# recipe should still be a standard mainline kernel, not your own custom
# one.
"

The first part states that I should not change linux-libc-headers. But when I
read the last part I'm not sure about the interpretation and it could be for
my case. Just a matter of definition if v4.1 is extremely old compared to v4.18.

Then another thing comes in to the equation; the LIBC ABI. When I look into
the configuration of the glibc package it uses the configure switch
"--enable-kernel=3.2" which means it shall be compatible with all kernel newer
than v3.2. Then probably glibc is fine if it is compiled with v4.18 and run on
v4.1?

If building all applications against v4.18 headers but run on v4.1 kernel. I
have a feeling that there potentially can be problems here.

Please help me with some information about this and share your opinions? Are
there any risks at all to use v4.1 as linux-libc-headers in my Yocto build?
The only drawback I see is that it will be a new configuration not well tested
by the community. Are there other risks or drawbacks using your own version of
linux-libc-headers?

It is not broken, so please don't fix it.

OpenPLi has been using kernels way older than 4.1 with the kernel-headers
generated by OE/yocto and did not experience any problems with that. There's
about 50+ machines in there that have pre-built binary drivers that only work
with a particular kernel config and hence the old stuff.

There are some corner-cases with exotic kernels and exotic exports and exotic
boot executables that use the kernel compiler, but I doubt that you're in there...

If you have a kernel that exports something that's not in the regular headers,
it's way better to solve that using a syscall than trying to poke in low level
libc stuff.

So again, if you don't experience problems, please don't try to fix it...

How to find a Linux kernel uapi header file with custom ioctl() etc definitions which
are missing form the default linux-libc-headers?

Other recipes and SDK builds need these.

Copying the needed header files into the recipes who needs them is not ok.

Cheers,

-Mikko

On 01-12-19 22:57, Peter Bergin via Lists.Yoctoproject.Org wrote:

Hi,

I'm currently working in a project using Yocto 2.6 (thud) release. It has
default kernel v4.18 and also linux-libc-headers from kernel v4.18. In my
project we will use kernel v4.1. I would like advice how to handle the
linux-libc-headers package for my project, should I use the v4.18 headers or
should I use the v4.1 header files which matches the running kernel?

From https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/headers_install.html:
"Kernel headers are backwards compatible, but not forwards compatible. This
means that a program built against a C library using older kernel headers
should run on a newer kernel (although it may not have access to new
features), but a program built against newer kernel headers may not work on an
older kernel."

With the information from the quote above I would directly use v4.1 headers as
my linux-libc-headers. But then reading the information in the file
meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers.inc makes me think
another round. It states:

"
# You're probably looking here thinking you need to create some new copy
# of linux-libc-headers since you have your own custom kernel. To put
# this simply, you DO NOT.
...
# There can also be a case where your kernel extremely old and you want
# an older libc ABI for that old kernel. The headers installed by this
# recipe should still be a standard mainline kernel, not your own custom
# one.
"

The first part states that I should not change linux-libc-headers. But when I
read the last part I'm not sure about the interpretation and it could be for
my case. Just a matter of definition if v4.1 is extremely old compared to v4.18.

Then another thing comes in to the equation; the LIBC ABI. When I look into
the configuration of the glibc package it uses the configure switch
"--enable-kernel=3.2" which means it shall be compatible with all kernel newer
than v3.2. Then probably glibc is fine if it is compiled with v4.18 and run on
v4.1?

If building all applications against v4.18 headers but run on v4.1 kernel. I
have a feeling that there potentially can be problems here.

Please help me with some information about this and share your opinions? Are
there any risks at all to use v4.1 as linux-libc-headers in my Yocto build?
The only drawback I see is that it will be a new configuration not well tested
by the community. Are there other risks or drawbacks using your own version of
linux-libc-headers?

It is not broken, so please don't fix it.

OpenPLi has been using kernels way older than 4.1 with the kernel-headers
generated by OE/yocto and did not experience any problems with that. There's
about 50+ machines in there that have pre-built binary drivers that only work
with a particular kernel config and hence the old stuff.

There are some corner-cases with exotic kernels and exotic exports and exotic
boot executables that use the kernel compiler, but I doubt that you're in there...

If you have a kernel that exports something that's not in the regular headers,
it's way better to solve that using a syscall than trying to poke in low level
libc stuff.

So again, if you don't experience problems, please don't try to fix it...

Hi,

On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 10:57:15PM +0100, Peter Bergin wrote:

Hi,

I'm currently working in a project using Yocto 2.6 (thud) release. It has
default kernel v4.18 and also linux-libc-headers from kernel v4.18. In my
project we will use kernel v4.1. I would like advice how to handle the
linux-libc-headers package for my project, should I use the v4.18 headers or
should I use the v4.1 header files which matches the running kernel?

From https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/headers_install.html:

"Kernel headers are backwards compatible, but not forwards compatible. This
means that a program built against a C library using older kernel headers
should run on a newer kernel (although it may not have access to new
features), but a program built against newer kernel headers may not work on
an older kernel."

With the information from the quote above I would directly use v4.1 headers
as my linux-libc-headers. But then reading the information in the file
meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers.inc makes me think
another round. It states:

"
# You're probably looking here thinking you need to create some new copy
# of linux-libc-headers since you have your own custom kernel. To put
# this simply, you DO NOT.
...
# There can also be a case where your kernel extremely old and you want
# an older libc ABI for that old kernel. The headers installed by this
# recipe should still be a standard mainline kernel, not your own custom
# one.
"

The first part states that I should not change linux-libc-headers. But when
I read the last part I'm not sure about the interpretation and it could be
for my case. Just a matter of definition if v4.1 is extremely old compared
to v4.18.

Then another thing comes in to the equation; the LIBC ABI. When I look into
the configuration of the glibc package it uses the configure switch
"--enable-kernel=3.2" which means it shall be compatible with all kernel
newer than v3.2. Then probably glibc is fine if it is compiled with v4.18
and run on v4.1?

If building all applications against v4.18 headers but run on v4.1 kernel. I
have a feeling that there potentially can be problems here.

Please help me with some information about this and share your opinions? Are
there any risks at all to use v4.1 as linux-libc-headers in my Yocto build?
The only drawback I see is that it will be a new configuration not well
tested by the community. Are there other risks or drawbacks using your own
version of linux-libc-headers?

I would fork linux-libc-headers to the kernel you are actually using despite the
comment in the file.

That's the only way to export headers from the correct kernel to everyone
who needs them.

There is no other documented way of exporting the actual kernel headers to users
in bitbake builds and SDK.

One optimization I would do is to fork the uapi headers from the actual kernel
recipe so that full system does not need to be recompiled when kernel changes.

One needs to manually track for kernel uapi header changes then.

Cheers,

-Mikko

Hello,

I'm trying to create a wic image that contains an ext4 partition image
file in the /boot partition . I've set the following:

IMAGE_FSTYPES = "tar.xz ext4 wic wic.bmap"
IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${IMAGE_BASENAME}-${MACHINE}.ext4;rootfs.ext4"

I'm using "beaglebone-yocto" for MACHINE and the above overrides what
is set in the "beaglebone-yocto.conf" machine configuration.

When I run "bitbake myimage", the do_image_wic task fails to find the
""${IMAGE_BASENAME}-${MACHINE}.ext4" because the do_image_wic task is
run before the do_image_complete task copies the files from DEPLOYDIR
into DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE. Since the do_image_wic task is looking in
DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE and is run before the do_image_complete task due to
dependencies, the creation of the wic image fails.

I tried to work around this with the following:

do_image_wic[recrdeptask] += "do_image_ext4"

but I quickly discovered that does not work due do_image_complete
copying of files (as discussed above).

If I remove "wic*" from IMAGE_FSTYPES, build myimage and then run wic
manually, all is good, but I lose the automating of wic image creation
when building the image recipe and also lose the ability to have other
image recipes inherit (via "include") and extend the base image (thus
inheriting the wic creation rules).

The end goal is to have an initramfs which loopback mounts the ext4
rootfs partition readonly from the /boot partition.

Any suggestions on how to get do_image_ext4 generated files available
to do_image_wic?

Ted Roth

Hi,

I'm currently working in a project using Yocto 2.6 (thud) release. It has default kernel v4.18 and also linux-libc-headers from kernel v4.18. In my project we will use kernel v4.1. I would like advice how to handle the linux-libc-headers package for my project, should I use the v4.18 headers or should I use the v4.1 header files which matches the running kernel?

From https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/headers_install.html:
"Kernel headers are backwards compatible, but not forwards compatible. This means that a program built against a C library using older kernel headers should run on a newer kernel (although it may not have access to new features), but a program built against newer kernel headers may not work on an older kernel."

With the information from the quote above I would directly use v4.1 headers as my linux-libc-headers. But then reading the information in the file meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers.inc makes me think another round. It states:

"
# You're probably looking here thinking you need to create some new copy
# of linux-libc-headers since you have your own custom kernel. To put
# this simply, you DO NOT.
...
# There can also be a case where your kernel extremely old and you want
# an older libc ABI for that old kernel. The headers installed by this
# recipe should still be a standard mainline kernel, not your own custom
# one.
"

The first part states that I should not change linux-libc-headers. But when I read the last part I'm not sure about the interpretation and it could be for my case. Just a matter of definition if v4.1 is extremely old compared to v4.18.

Then another thing comes in to the equation; the LIBC ABI. When I look into the configuration of the glibc package it uses the configure switch "--enable-kernel=3.2" which means it shall be compatible with all kernel newer than v3.2. Then probably glibc is fine if it is compiled with v4.18 and run on v4.1?

If building all applications against v4.18 headers but run on v4.1 kernel. I have a feeling that there potentially can be problems here.

Please help me with some information about this and share your opinions? Are there any risks at all to use v4.1 as linux-libc-headers in my Yocto build? The only drawback I see is that it will be a new configuration not well tested by the community. Are there other risks or drawbacks using your own version of linux-libc-headers?

Best regards,
/Peter

Thanks Paul, indeed, what was I missing.

Kind regards,

- jh

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019, at 11:28, JH wrote:

Hi,

I built a Yocto image, but could not find /init, usually it should be
a symbolic link in /init->/sbin/init->/lib/systemd/systemd, In
/lib/systemd directory, it only contains a subdirectory system, all
other systemd binaries are missing, many system commands in /sbin are
also missing. What could I get wrong here to miss out all systemd
files?

Are you using an existing image recipe or writing your own? If it's your own, do you have packagegroup-core-boot included?

Thanks,

--
Paul Barker

Hi,

I built a Yocto image, but could not find /init, usually it should be
a symbolic link in /init->/sbin/init->/lib/systemd/systemd, In
/lib/systemd directory, it only contains a subdirectory system, all
other systemd binaries are missing, many system commands in /sbin are
also missing. What could I get wrong here to miss out all systemd
files?

Thank you.

Kind regards,

- jh

but when I run bitbake ex-image2, it only built ex-image2 image, it did not built images defined in ex-image1.bb.

See this previous answer on the mailing list to a similar question:

https://www.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/2018-August/042220.html

- Morné

Hi,

I built a Yocto image in a file app-image.rootfs.tar.gz, I also built
a kernel initramfs to bundle the rootfs, but that kernel rootfs is
different to my app-image.rootfs.tar.gz, how to define IMAGE_ROOTFS to
have my kernel rootfs point to the same rootfs packaged to
app-image.rootfs.tar.gz?

Thank you.

Kind regards,

- jh

Hi,

I have two images recipes, one is included in another image recipe:

$ ls recipes-core/images

ex-image1.bb ex-image2.bb

$ cat recipes-core/images/ex-image2.bb

include ex-image1.bb
......

My understanding that the metadata "include" is to include all image
files defined in the included recipe as well, but when I run bitbake
ex-image2, it only built ex-image2 image, it did not built images
defined in ex-image1.bb.

What could I be missing here? How could I build an image to include
all image files included in another image.bb?

Thank you.

Kind regards,

- jh

If the Wm_config instance contains a non-NULL pointer in its kbd_conf_file
member, then (in a build that does not use gconf) keys_load_config() will
assign that pointer to a local conf_path variable. However, keys_load_config()
later calls free() on this conf_path variable (since it may instead have been
assigned a malloc'd buffer). This can therefore leave Wm_config::kbd_conf_file
as a dangling pointer. Furthermore, if the user has specified the -kbdconfig
argument when starting matchbox-window-manager then this pointer comes from argv
and so the call to free() can lead to a segmentation fault.

This patch fixes the issue by using strdup() to make a copy of the string
pointed to by the Wm_config::kbd_conf_file member pointer. This matches the
approach used when conf_path is required to take the value of a string literal,
and ensures that free() can safely be called on conf_path.

Signed-off-by: Simon Haggett <simon.haggett@...>
---
src/keys.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/keys.c b/src/keys.c
index bc83bd4..ca77f81 100644
--- a/src/keys.c
+++ b/src/keys.c
@@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ keys_load_config(Wm *w)
};

if (w->config->kbd_conf_file != NULL)
- conf_path = w->config->kbd_conf_file;
+ conf_path = strdup(w->config->kbd_conf_file);

if (conf_path == NULL && getenv("HOME"))
{
--
2.17.1

Hello everyone,

I started to build kernel with initramfs, and so far all that works
great. I got my new shiny zImage-initramfs--4.1.14..xxx.bin. I can
boot it over tftp, its does exactly what i want.

Problem im facing is, how do i put this new zImage instead of
originally built zImage in final rootfs archive (tar.gz).

To clarify, upon a "bitbake create-my-fancy-image" i got in
tmp/deploy/images two zImage files, one without initramfs and one with
initramfs. When i inspect my rootfs.tar.gz /boot folder, i have zImage
inisde (symlink and DTB also).

I would like to replace somehow this zImage with initramfs version.
How do i do that?

Documentations talks only about this IMAGE_BUNDLE that is going to
merge kernel with initramfs, but i cant find any obvious way to get
this into rootfs, to replace somehow original zImage.

The best idea i have so far (that does not work) is to do something like this:

initramfs_postprocess() {
# NOTE: pseudo code
rm ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/boot/zImage-custom*
unlink ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/boot/zImage
# Im not sure how do i reference file from tmp/deploy/images, which
is my question number 2
cp zImage-initramfs-* to ${WORKDIR}/boot/zImage
}

ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND += "initramfs_postprocess; "

This above looks very dirty to me, but its best "idea" i have atm.

So, in my local.conf i have:
INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE = "1" # means fuse kernel + initramfs

And in my main image recipe i have:
INITRAMFS_IMAGE = "initramfs-custom" #name of the recipe that provides
some custom /init
INITRAMFS_FSTYPES = "cpio.gz" # make a compressed cpio out of initramfs

One thing to note, im trying to avoid doing this with wks and creating
a special /boot partition. This is not something im really targeting,
i know its possible, but i want to have my kernel inside rootfs.tar.gz
in /boot from single image recipe due the various reasons.

Any suggestion is much appreciated.

Regards,
Sinisa

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, at 13:23, Paul Barker wrote:

The addError() handler is called outside of an actual exception handler
so sys.exc_info() doesn't actually return an exception. This means that
traceback.print_exc() doesn't know what to print. Instead we need to use
traceback.print_exception() with the err object we've been given.

Signed-off-by: Paul Barker <paul@...>
---
patchtest | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/patchtest b/patchtest
index 592f73e..59b19f5 100755
--- a/patchtest
+++ b/patchtest
@@ -101,8 +101,7 @@ def getResult(patch, mergepatch):

def addError(self, test, err):
self.test_error = True
- (ty, va, trace) = err
- logger.error(traceback.print_exc())
+ logger.error(traceback.print_exception(*err))

def addFailure(self, test, err):
self.test_failure = True
--
2.17.1

Ping on this and the following patch.

--
Paul Barker

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Paul Barker wrote:

The case sensitivity of the checks for the "Upstream-Status" label
should match so that failure messages make sense. The checks in the
parse_upstream_status module are case sensitive and so the initial regex
check should also be made case sensitive.

A quick note about case sensitivity is added to the advice given if
"Upstream-Status" is not found.

Signed-off-by: Paul Barker <paul@...>
---
tests/test_patch_upstream_status.py | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tests/test_patch_upstream_status.py
b/tests/test_patch_upstream_status.py
index a477dfb..ecccc58 100644
--- a/tests/test_patch_upstream_status.py
+++ b/tests/test_patch_upstream_status.py
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ import os

class PatchUpstreamStatus(base.Base):

- upstream_status_regex = re.compile("(?<=\+)Upstream.Status", re.IGNORECASE)
+ upstream_status_regex = re.compile("(?<=\+)Upstream.Status")

@classmethod
def setUpClassLocal(cls):
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ class PatchUpstreamStatus(base.Base):
payload = newpatch.__str__()
if not self.upstream_status_regex.search(payload):
self.fail('Added patch file is missing Upstream-Status
in the header',
- 'Add Upstream-Status: <Valid status> to the
header of %s' % newpatch.path,
+ 'Add Upstream-Status: <Valid status> (case
sensitive) to the header of %s' % newpatch.path,
data=[('Standard format',
self.standard_format), ('Valid status', self.valid_status)])
for line in payload.splitlines():
if self.patchmetadata_regex.match(line):
--
2.17.1

Ping.

--
Paul Barker

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:47 AM Alexander Kanavin
<alex.kanavin@...> wrote:

Drop backported patch (new gettext includes the updates).

Drop version from the .bbappend (hopefully no version-specific
tweaks will be needed going forward).

I've applied this to master-next, we can pull up master once the
oe-core patch lands. I'm assuming this will break the current master
AB builds if it's applied to master without the oe-core patch?

Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...>
---
.../fix-gl_cv_prog_as_underscore-test.patch | 67 -------------------
...ext_0.19.%.bbappend => gettext_%.bbappend} | 1 -
2 files changed, 68 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 recipes-core/gettext/gettext/fix-gl_cv_prog_as_underscore-test.patch
rename recipes-core/gettext/{gettext_0.19.%.bbappend => gettext_%.bbappend} (87%)

diff --git a/recipes-core/gettext/gettext/fix-gl_cv_prog_as_underscore-test.patch b/recipes-core/gettext/gettext/fix-gl_cv_prog_as_underscore-test.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 636789f..0000000
--- a/recipes-core/gettext/gettext/fix-gl_cv_prog_as_underscore-test.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,67 +0,0 @@
-Backport gnulib fix for mingw into gettext's included version of gnulib
-
-http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/commit/?id=68b6adebef05670a312fb92b05e7bd089d2ed43a
-
-Upstream-Status: Backport
-Signed-off-by: Nathan Rossi <nathan@...>
-
---- a/gettext-runtime/gnulib-m4/asm-underscore.m4
-+++ b/gettext-runtime/gnulib-m4/asm-underscore.m4
-@@ -27,11 +27,11 @@
- #endif
- int foo(void) { return 0; }
- EOF
- # Look for the assembly language name in the .s file.
- AC_TRY_COMMAND(${CC-cc} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $gl_c_asm_opt conftest.c) >/dev/null 2>&1
-- if LC_ALL=C grep -E '(^|[^a-zA-Z0-9_])_foo([^a-zA-Z0-9_]|$)' conftest.$gl_asmext >/dev/null; then
-+ if LC_ALL=C grep -E '(^|[[^a-zA-Z0-9_]])_foo([[^a-zA-Z0-9_]]|$)' conftest.$gl_asmext >/dev/null; then
- gl_cv_prog_as_underscore=yes
- else
- gl_cv_prog_as_underscore=no
- fi
- rm -f conftest*
---- a/gettext-runtime/configure
-+++ b/gettext-runtime/configure
-@@ -24601,11 +24601,11 @@
- { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5
- (eval $ac_try) 2>&5
- ac_status=$?
- $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5
- test $ac_status = 0; }; } >/dev/null 2>&1
-- if LC_ALL=C grep -E '(^|^a-zA-Z0-9_)_foo(^a-zA-Z0-9_|$)' conftest.$gl_asmext >/dev/null; then
-+ if LC_ALL=C grep -E '(^|[^a-zA-Z0-9_])_foo([^a-zA-Z0-9_]|$)' conftest.$gl_asmext >/dev/null; then
- gl_cv_prog_as_underscore=yes
- else
- gl_cv_prog_as_underscore=no
- fi
- rm -f conftest*
---- a/gettext-tools/gnulib-m4/asm-underscore.m4
-+++ b/gettext-tools/gnulib-m4/asm-underscore.m4
-@@ -27,11 +27,11 @@
- #endif
- int foo(void) { return 0; }
- EOF
- # Look for the assembly language name in the .s file.
- AC_TRY_COMMAND(${CC-cc} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $gl_c_asm_opt conftest.c) >/dev/null 2>&1
-- if LC_ALL=C grep -E '(^|[^a-zA-Z0-9_])_foo([^a-zA-Z0-9_]|$)' conftest.$gl_asmext >/dev/null; then
-+ if LC_ALL=C grep -E '(^|[[^a-zA-Z0-9_]])_foo([[^a-zA-Z0-9_]]|$)' conftest.$gl_asmext >/dev/null; then
- gl_cv_prog_as_underscore=yes
- else
- gl_cv_prog_as_underscore=no
- fi
- rm -f conftest*
---- a/gettext-tools/configure
-+++ b/gettext-tools/configure
-@@ -32284,11 +32284,11 @@
- { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5
- (eval $ac_try) 2>&5
- ac_status=$?
- $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5
- test $ac_status = 0; }; } >/dev/null 2>&1
-- if LC_ALL=C grep -E '(^|^a-zA-Z0-9_)_foo(^a-zA-Z0-9_|$)' conftest.$gl_asmext >/dev/null; then
-+ if LC_ALL=C grep -E '(^|[^a-zA-Z0-9_])_foo([^a-zA-Z0-9_]|$)' conftest.$gl_asmext >/dev/null; then
- gl_cv_prog_as_underscore=yes
- else
- gl_cv_prog_as_underscore=no
- fi
- rm -f conftest*
diff --git a/recipes-core/gettext/gettext_0.19.%.bbappend b/recipes-core/gettext/gettext_%.bbappend
similarity index 87%
rename from recipes-core/gettext/gettext_0.19.%.bbappend
rename to recipes-core/gettext/gettext_%.bbappend
index 21749f3..d518698 100644
--- a/recipes-core/gettext/gettext_0.19.%.bbappend
+++ b/recipes-core/gettext/gettext_%.bbappend
@@ -2,7 +2,6 @@ EXTRA_OECONF_append_mingw32 = " --enable-static"

FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend_mingw32 := "${THISDIR}/${BPN}:"
SRC_URI_append_mingw32 = " \
- file://fix-gl_cv_prog_as_underscore-test.patch \
"

FILES_libgettextlib_mingw32 = "${bindir}/libgettextlib-*.dll"
--
2.17.1

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#47462): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/47462
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/64260047/3616693
Group Owner: yocto+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [JPEWhacker@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-